hacker

Now to answer the other part of your question, if elections were EVERY year, that would just be a pain in the ass.

And every four years ...as opposed to every two, would alleviate the anal pain too.
Elections are a necessity. But if nothing really gets accomplished in an election the electorate turns off. And only the more committed vote. The more committed also tend to be more extreme in their positions...

A healthy democracy is when most of the population exercises their franchise. A disinterested, non involved and demotivated electorate don't vote. The turn out in the last midterm was 36.4% . Statistically this number means that the electorate might not actually represent the views of the population. And a healthy democracy SHOULD .

Maybe its because the electorate thinks elections every two years are what you think they'd be every year....

Voter turnout in presidential elections is historically much higher than in midterms– 58.2% of eligible voters voted in 2012, and 61.6% voted in 2008, the highest turnout since 1968. In other words, turnout for Obama’s first presidential election was almost double the 2014 midterm turnout

http://time.com/3576090/midterm-electio ... d-war-two/

hacker

I mean real data that could prove it.

Actually Sass did use real data. He used the average cost of two elections and divided it in two.
And its a very reasonable assumption. Your convolutions aren't .

Actually Sass did use real data. He used the average cost of two elections and divided it in two.
And its a very reasonable assumption. Your convolutions aren't

And how much was that? Remind me.

Don't take the following statement too literally; but this talk of reducing the congressional campaign dollars "by half" simply by extending the term of a congressman by a factor of two, almost reminds me of something a rather cynical friend of mine said about the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT):

Hey, guys, let's take our stockpile of 20,000 nuclear warheads and dismantle 10,000 of them. Now we can only blow the entire crust off of the Earth FIVE times over instead of TEN! Whoopee! Don't you feel so much safer now?

In other words, half a shitload is still a shitload. And you said "a very reasonable assumption". Assumption is not the same as proof. You could have at least omitted the words "very" and "reasonable" because the assumption is not a reasonable one at all. As I said, I sympathize with the idea in principle, but in practice, the medicine would be worse the disease, and not even cute it to begin with.

A healthy democracy is when most of the population exercises their franchise. A disinterested, non involved and demotivated electorate don't vote. The turn out in the last midterm was 36.4% . Statistically this number means that the electorate might not actually represent the views of the population. And a healthy democracy SHOULD

Well, I agree with you about the 36.4% turnout in the last midterm is indeed shitty. I agree it is disgraceful, especially when my grandfather probably lost a shitload of friends in the Pacific fighting the Japanese, and my dear great Aunt Rose lost her husband in the war in Europe, fighting so that democracy would prevail over fascist dictatorships. I think of that every time I drive to the polls, which I have faithfully done since the 1996 primary (when I was first old enough to vote that year).

However, the other side of the coin is that full or near-full voter turnout is not necessarily a sign of a healthy democracy. Wikipedia has a list of elections from countries all over the world. Take a look at some of these massive voter turnouts, and then take a step back and look at how screwed up or unstable that country's politics is, and I'm not just talking about countries that flip between a democracy and a junta like a light switch (though many of those seem to have quite high turnouts..it's like they appreciate it better you know?) The last Italian election enjoyed a voter turnout of 75%. I think we agreed earlier than Italy is not the world's most stable or functional western democracy a while ago in this thread. Oh and Iraq's second election, for the "permanent" parliament, had a turnout of 79.6%, and no effective fraud (according to the UN observers).

And not to pick on the Australians, but they have compulsory voting for a damned good reason. Why else would they have forced people by penalty of law to vote, unless only a pitiful few actually did it, prompting the Australian government to legally force people to vote?

For all your "complications" one of the things you've previously admired about your system and wondered about the British system, was the members greater independence versus a parliamentarians greater need and tradition for party discipline.

Wait, I thought you said that because we're so polarized and dysfunctional now, our congressmen vote in sheeplike fashion for what the party wants, regardless of their own personal feelings? You specifically said earlier in the thread that the polarization partly to blame for us being dysfunctional causes our congressmen & senators to vote the party line, almost like it was a parliamentary democracy. I said "yes and no" as far as how independent congressmen are because it depends on the situation. Sometimes, Ricky, answers are not a simple yes. Now you've done a 180 on that, and are arguing with me that they are totally independent free agents. Are you, too, trying to say "Yes and no"? Your whole problem is that you want a simple answer where there is not one to give! Also, unless I have grossly misunderstood you on precisely that subject, you're starting to get a little contradictory: which is it? our congressmen are so polarized they vote party line (which the president can actually heavily influence at times) or are they free agents?

If I see a buddy of mine I know who knows Barney Frank personally on Thursday, I'll get his take on exactly how much freedom members of Congress possess. I'll also make a point to asking the two guys I campaigned for, how independent congressmen are. I take it you'll take their answers as closer to "gospel" than you 'll take mine? Sigh....between the two of us, I'm the one who actually participates in this system. So you can call me (and my opinions) convoluted from afar but you have never taken part in United States politics personally. I do not mean to brag, but I used to be a member of a Republican club (a long time ago before I really gave the gay thing a good long thought), ran for office in a primary myself, and have supported candidates for municipal and State office. After all, I was asking you about Canada all the time, and Danivon and Sassenach about the UK. Why? Because you were personally involved in it. I sorta thought that counts for something.

Don't get me wrong, I'm impressed with everyone's knowledge of our system. Too bad Americans don't know just as much about yours and others, especially of their own NATO partners and allies. A sad fact indeed, n'est-ce pas? And I admit, some of us are pitifully ignorant of our system and its flaws. Laugh all you want Ricky I don't consider myself one of the ignorant. Yes, there are plenty. But there are plenty of my type, too.

Shorter campaign periods, and no "primaries" actually helps with controlling costs. Plus the shorter campaigns means that the attention of the electorate can be focused on the campaign issues. In the perennial campaign, or always on mode of politics in the US, voter wear out because the talking never stops.

But how? And if they had to wait twice as long to do it, wouldn't they have to make up for it with a longer campaign period? Though at least I'll admit that's just an assumption, of course. Again, what guarantee is there of that? And abolishing primaries? What the hell good would that do? How would you "shorten" the campaign? Anybody can shake hands with key constituents (or donors) and talk to them any time they want. No one is forbidden from schmoozing just because the election is still a year or two away. Or even four years. Reducing campaign costs? I believe that to be overly optimistic at best, Ricky.

By the way, for interest sake Hacker: A Canadian MP was recently convicted of election fraud. He overspent his limit and then lied about the expenditure. He was a significant member, being the PMs parliamentary secretary. He was turfed from the caucus when he was charged, and now faces loss of his seat as criminal punishment. Oh, turns out he resigned last week.

Naughty-naughty.

Once you get past several thousand constituents, the actual "knowing" everyone becomes impossible. Trying to keep things on a human scale, is easier when you don't allow unlimited amount of money into a campaign. Things like public debaes become much more important than 30 second television spots ...

"Duh" again. My point precisely: part of the problem is the sheer size of the constituency of a member of Congress. But lengthening the term for the lower house ain't gonna six that, buddy; as an American I can promise you that. And the population is only getting bigger (as well as older!) How long will it be before we DO need a House chamber that resembles the Galactic Senate? (anyone who has seen the Star Wars prequels will know what I'm talking about) Not only could it fit 5,000 members (thus reducing our average constituency to around 60,000 residents per congressman) but the floating platforms look really cool.

But no joke, what are we going to have to do with our constitution when the population hits 400 or even 500 million?

Out of curiosity, Ricky, may I ask, which province you live in?

OK so is there anything I still haven't answered directly?

Sorry that was so long but I was trying to cover a lot of ground and I type fairly quickly.

But how? And if they had to wait twice as long to do it, wouldn't they have to make up for it with a longer campaign period? Though at least I'll admit that's just an assumption, of course. Again, what guarantee is there of that? And abolishing primaries? What the hell good would that do? How would you "shorten" the campaign? Anybody can shake hands with key constituents (or donors) and talk to them any time they want. No one is forbidden from schmoozing just because the election is still a year or two away. Or even four years. Reducing campaign costs? I believe that to be overly optimistic at best, Ricky

.

I wasn't making a suggestion here Hacker... I was pointing out the differences and benefits of short elections as problem in UK and Canada.
The great expenses in any election are media costs. By shortening allowable periods when media can be puchased or signs posted or campaign events held...you reduce costs. There is only so much money that can be spent in a compressed period of time.

Why would you need twice as long to campaign if you held elections further apart?

perhaps I did not say that correctly: twice as long to WAIT to campaign. or something like that...youll have to forgive me I'm on an iPad right now and even with the little bluetooth keyboard its annoying. I can explain more what I meant when I said "yes and no" to the "freedom" or lack thereof of members of 'congress vis a vis the executive. when i get to my desktop computer.

You're right about the media. Forget vouchers, I think if the presidential candidates, even the incumbent, and other candidates for office, were given air time courtesy of the U.S. Treasury, rather than having to buy it out of campaign funds, that might lessen the dependency on campaign donations to pay for that sort of thing. It would at least be a start, if not a whole a solution.

OK, I think you had asked for a better explanation of the freedom of conscience of members of Congress, vis a vis the executive branch, right? First, I just want to ask, have you seen the movie The American President?

hacker

perhaps I did not say that correctly: twice as long to WAIT to campaign

Most will see this as a major benefit. Both candidates and constituents....
The notion that the electorate can't wait to throw the bums out is belied by the fact tha 94% of incumbents are re-elected. and by the incredibly low turnout for mid terms...

rickyp wrote:hacker

perhaps I did not say that correctly: twice as long to WAIT to campaign

Most will see this as a major benefit. Both candidates and constituents....
The notion that the electorate can't wait to throw the bums out is belied by the fact tha 94% of incumbents are re-elected. and by the incredibly low turnout for mid terms...

Perhaps you want the congressmen in the midterm elections, and the president on the other election. I might consider that... Of course it would take a Constitutional amendment.

That's a good point, and I'll even admit it throws a bit dint into my theory. But not entirely. Those incumbents, with the 94% incumbency rate, are being re-elected in presidential and midterm years. In Maryland, I think we re-elected all 8 congressman (one was losing but I think once the absentee ballots are counted it'll be a narrow win). And if this were a presidential year? Same thing.

The president of the United States is also a lot more visible. There are people who cannot name their own congressmen, even among the more politically aware, but they can name the president. These can be people who just vote for the president and leave the part of the ballot with their congressman blank (or just vote him/her anyway in sheeplike fashion). But not everybody fits that description. Should we be punished for their lack of interest by taking away our right to remove an unpopular congressman?

The incumbency rate has more to do with gerrymandering in my opinion. I doubt the incumbency rate changes just for midterms.

I could of course make another spreadsheet, adding to my table to show how the House and Senate tipped during midterms as well as presidential years.

Perhaps you want the congressmen in the midterm elections, and the president on the other election. I might consider that... Of course it would take a Constitutional amendment.

Well part of the idea was to reduce potential gridlock. Not everybody has caught on to the fact that risk of gridlock is a necessary evil in "separation" of powers governments.

By the way, I know that Franklin Roosevelt was the last president to be sworn into office on March 4th of the odd year (his three re-elections were January 20th). Does anybody know about Congress? When did they take office following their election in November (of the even year)?

The president of the United States is also a lot more visible. There are people who cannot name their own congressmen, even among the more politically aware, but they can name the president. These can be people who just vote for the president and leave the part of the ballot with their congressman blank (or just vote him/her anyway in sheeplike fashion). But not everybody fits that description. Should we be punished for their lack of interest by taking away our right to remove an unpopular congressman?

In what way would having to wait an extra couple of years be taking away your rights to remove an unpopular Congressman (something which you've already admitted rarely happens anyway) ?

I made up a spreadsheet that now includes midterm elections. Only problem is prior to the election of 1934. On Jan 23, 1933, we ratified an amendment changing the date of the beginning of the term of the president/vp to January 20th from March 4th, and Congress to Jan 3, from....I don't know when. Anybody?

It happens rarely because of gerrymandering, not the terms of congressmen. Gerrymandering seems to have affected congressional elections for some time, right? I think we agreed on that? Especially including the incumbency rate in the House? Perhaps the data I put on the spreadsheet would look a little different, at least for the House, if every state did something about that.

Would you not say that gerrymandering has affected all congressional elections? Or that it is an affliction limited to midterms?

By the way, does anybody want to see the spreadsheet? It shows both midterms and presidential years, from last Tuesday as far back as the Nov 1900 election.

I probably could have highlighted the presidential elections that might have made it a bit easier to read. And it is not checked, yet. I could very well have made a slight mistake here or there.

If you recall, what I actually suggested was longer Congressional terms in combination with an independent body to set the district boundaries so as to do away with gerrymandering. An end to the primary system would be even more beneficial, but sadly that seems impossible.

Yes I know. And you all know that I totally agree with the independent boundary commission idea. Some states (a small handful regrettably) have done that already (the redrawing of congressional districts is in the hands of the state legislatures as well currently...except in those 4 or 5 states I believe).

The primary system: mend it, don't end it. Maybe if it worked better more people would vote in them? (Like if Iowa and New Hampshire didn't have virtual control over the whole process, for example.) But that's a debate for another thread I think, how the primary system could be mended. I cannot imagine not having it. Because there are other offices than just the presidency that are up for grabs in those primaries.

By the way, does anybody want to see this spreadsheet? I won't be offended if no one says yes, but I think I did do a decent job on the research, even if the research itself was fairly straightforward. I've got the data going back to the election of 1900 (re-election of McKinley with his 2nd VP, T. Roosevelt; and the 57th Congress).

Of course, it shows the years of elections of those congresses (even years) not the date its term officially began. The ratification of the 20th Amendment (Jan 23, 1933) changed the date of the commencement of the new presidency/vice-presidency at noon on 20th of January, and of the new Congress at noon, 17 days previously (January 3rd). I know the president/vice-president used to take office on March 4th instead, but I do not know when the new congress would commence after an election, prior to the 20th amendment taking effect. Anybody know?